This is the first issue of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice (IOP) under a new editorial team. In light of this, now is a good opportunity to recognize the work of those who have helped build the journal into its current state and to describe the goals for the next few years.

There has been an explosion of within-profession studies examining standings on gender representation in advancement, publication patterns, and conference presentations. However, industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology has yet to take such an introspective look and fully join these conversations. This manuscript aims to initiate and encourage such discussion. Through a brief review of relevant background information and the collection and analysis of recent archival data, we seek to examine where we have been with regard to gender representation, where we currently stand, and what steps are needed moving forward. We aim to stimulate continued examinations on this topic while recommending appropriate action items relevant to achieving equity in representation in our field.

As Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) state, their findings on gender representation in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology indicate that “the profession as a whole falls into the category of ‘not walking the talk’” (p. 385). We agree that it is imperative to understand the current state of gender inequity in our field while also actively working toward achieving gender equity. This article attempts to inspire each and every individual in I-O psychology to feel a personal responsibility to engage in behaviors that reduce gender disparities in our field. Although women are normatively the focus in fights for gender equity, men should be equal partners in these efforts. In this commentary, we focus on the contributions that male allies in I-O psychology can make in fostering gender equity. To be clear, we are not claiming that women need to be rescued by men; however, we do believe that I-O psychology can achieve the greatest progress toward gender equity when both women and men engage in supportive efforts. As Emma Watson said in her 2014 United Nations speech, “How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation?” (UN Women, 2014). In times when political leaders and national laws may fail women, it is crucial that local communities—like the I-O community—adopt a clear stance in promoting gender equity. In this commentary, we define allyship, discuss the importance of male allies, suggest ways in which male allies can help promote gender equity in I-O psychology, and consider potential barriers to male allyship and ways to overcome them. The strategies that we propose are by no means exhaustive; rather, they are suggestions for how to initiate a larger movement.

A major goal of Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) was to determine what steps are needed moving forward in examining gender representation in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Specifically, on the topic of pay differences, we highlight that gender differences in pay are in part due to differences in negotiation behaviors and/or experiences. Prior research demonstrates that female negotiators receive greater backlash than male negotiators—a possible explanation to why men tend to negotiate more often and more successfully than women (Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007). Based on this evidence, one next step in moving forward should involve providing resources and knowledge to improve negotiation skills and practices specifically aimed at eliminating differences between women and men in both propensity to negotiate and the evaluation/consequences of negotiating.

Scientific fields benefit when their researchers engage in self-reflection. Accordingly, we welcome the evidence gathered by Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) on gender differences in our field, the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. In this commentary, we argue that such self-reflection processes can be further enhanced by taking advantage of the wealth and breadth of scientometrics, the quantitative study of science.

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) emphasize the need to assess human capital and market factors that may contribute to gender differences in income and suggest that such data are not readily available. As members of the Institutional Research Committee, we thought it important to provide some evidence addressing the focal article's main points using what data are available. Specifically, we conducted ad hoc analyses using data from the 2016 SIOP Income and Employment Survey, with the intent of providing additional context related to employment and compensation for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists. Our sample included only respondents who indicated that they worked full time and who provided their gender (n = 1,069). These analyses answer Gardner et al.’s call to examine factors that explain the income gap between men and women within the field.

The field of psychology has a long history of tracing the lineage of modern day psychologists back to their academic roots (Benjamin, Durkin, Link, Vestal, & Accord, 1992), and industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is no exception (Culbertson, 2016). Why do we do it? Well, it is intriguing to see how our initial training may be linked back to some of the pioneers of our field. Perhaps it also represents how we are connected with one another—through our extended family relationships. But of course an academic family tree only reflects a portion of how we might be interconnected with one another—certainly our networks go much further than our dissertation chairs. Indeed, they might include our collaborators, coworkers and former coworkers, fellow former graduate students, and a host of people with whom we have connected at conferences or through other professional and personal relationships, and the composition of these networks, arguably, matters.

“What if gender mattered less? Pigs might actually fly before that happens,” said Dr. Mikki Hebl at the Shaken & Stirred event at the 2017 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) conference (I-O Shaken & Stirred, 2017). If gender mattered less, “SIOP itself would see differences. Women comprised only six out of the 21 SIOP fellows this year, and five of the 25 major award recipients yesterday . . . were women.” With that, she dropped the microphone and walked off the stage. This video has been viewed on YouTube more than twice as many times as most of the other Shaken & Stirred videos that are available, and it is this boldness that is needed in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology if we expect to see changes.

Research on gender differences in the allocation and evaluation of three main components of academic work (i.e., research, teaching, and service) is very informative, and we argue that it may point to potential sources of the disparity in academic industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists’ experiences. We also propose the addition of a few issues to the research agenda set forth by Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) with the belief that attention to these issues will help address the gender disparity.

We applaud the efforts of Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) in launching much-needed dialogue on gender representation within the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. We agree that it is imperative to address inequity in our profession, beginning with an informed assessment of accurate information. However, the focal article did not offer any information on the representation of a group that too often goes unnoticed: women of color.

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) provide illuminating analyses regarding the role of gender in career advancement within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. One of their suggestions for further advancing this area of research is to examine homophily, defined as the tendency for individuals to have social ties with those who are similar to themselves, in the social networks of men and women in the field. Such research is warranted because social networks—in particular, the networks of research collaboration relationships (e.g., publications, grants) scientists develop throughout their careers—are critical to success in academia (e.g., Bozeman & Corley, 2004).

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) provided an excellent and much-needed analysis of the status of women in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Although others have produced overall assessments of the status of women in psychology (Eagly & Riger, 2014; Kite et al., 2001), these are not sufficient to identify conditions within the subfields of psychology. As shown by statistics on the divisions of the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/about/division/officers/services/profiles.aspx), the subfields differ greatly in their gender balance, with some being male dominated (e.g., experimental and cognitive science), others female dominated (e.g., developmental psychology), and still others representing women and men more equally (e.g., social and personality psychology). I-O psychology is among the more gender-balanced fields, with an increasing proportion of women over time. It would seem that I-O's gradual inclusion of more women should have changed aspects of research and discourse in this field. In this comment, we argue that these women have produced impressive changes.

In this article, we argue that changes in workplace characteristics over the last few decades may affect work relationships and call for adjustments in the traditional theoretical framework used to understand them. Since the last quarter of the 20th century, there have been theories regarding changes in labor relationships following technological, political, globalization, and economical changes. However, we examine the changes in light of psychological theories rather than labor or industrial approaches. We review four main areas where social exchange theory (SET) has been implemented, address recent changes that challenge the traditional SET perspective, and propose alternative models. We refer to these models as “hybrid” as they integrate traditional SET premises with new-era workplace characteristics. First, we describe several changes in workplace characteristics. Next, we review some of the most conventional applications of SET to work relationships. Finally, we critically examine whether this theory meets the requirements of work relationships in the new world of work and conclude by arguing that SET needs to be adjusted to reflect the assumption that frequent changes in employee and organizational characteristics in the new workplaces require similar frequent adjustments in exchange relationships.

Few would argue that the workplace has changed tremendously over a short period of time and will continue to evolve in the years to come. Regardless of whether change is major or minor, lightning fast or painfully slow, change in and of itself may not be sufficient cause for substantial revision of existing theories, such as social exchange theory (SET); the formulation of entirely new theories; or the creation of new constructs. This is for two reasons: (a) the possibility that we overestimate the impact of change on the workplace, and (b) change can be readily incorporated into our existing theories. We expand on each of these points below and describe several possible macrolevel trends that may impact SET in the years to come.

To critically evaluate the relevance of social exchange theory (SET) to the contemporary workplace, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) point out a number of factors that reshape work relationships and suggest how to apply and extend social exchange theory to understand the new era work relationships. However, in their discussion, they focus mainly on reciprocal exchange (RE) in dyadic relationships. The discussion completely overlooks another important form of social exchange, namely, generalized exchange (GE), which is increasingly relevant to contemporary organizations exactly because of the changes indicated by Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu. In this commentary, we briefly review prior investigations into GE across various social science disciplines and then point out its increasing relevance to organizations. Finally, we will discuss implications for future research in the industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology literature.

In their focal article, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) argue that social exchange theory (SET) needs an update, and in this they are aligned with Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, and Hall's (2017) recent critical review of SET. Drawing on Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's research, we explore two issues in more depth: first, that work relationships are becoming more complex than can be represented by simple dyadic reciprocity; and second, that the context of work is changing rapidly, with implications for workplace relationships. In exploring the ideas put forward by Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu, we draw on Cropanzano et al.’s two-dimensional model of social exchange, with the first dimension being desirable (positive) resources contrasted with undesirable (negative) ones, and the additional dimension being active (exhibit) behavior versus passive (withdraw) behavior. The first valence-oriented dimension fits clearly with the four foci of Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's research, which cover both positive constructs, namely leader–member exchange (LMX), perceived organizational support and loyalty, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), as well as negative constructs of perceived organizational politics and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). The second, behavioral dimension proposed by Cropanzano et al. adds useful theoretical specificity that may address Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's contention that SET needs updating to account for changes in how employees work and how organizations function.

Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) argue that social exchange theory (SET) should be revised to accommodate work relationships in the “new era” of work, characterized by a more diverse workforce with changing expectations for relationships between themselves and their organizational representatives. To account for the modern workplace, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu introduce “new” or “modern exchange variables” that capture modern workplace conditions and employee characteristics or preferences, which they expect to indirectly influence whether and how employees develop high-quality work relationships with organizational representatives.

Social exchange theory (SET) is an important foundation of social sciences from which many workplace theories have emerged. Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu (2018) contend that social exchange is at the heart of workplace relationships. Although SET is a complex framework, in essence, it views workplace interactions as exchanges of resources broadly construed, ranging from tangible resources such as money, goods, and services to intangible ones such as information, support, and trust (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Foa & Foa, 1980). Governed by the rule of reciprocity, parties involved in social exchanges use rational deliberation to gauge how much they need to repay for others’ actions. Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu posit that workplace theories rooted in SET should be modified to accommodate the new realities in modern organizations. Although we concur with their observations about new characteristics of work, we are not as optimistic as Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu about SET's capacity to guide our understanding and actions to improve workplace relationships. We argue that positive interventions are important complements to the social exchange process, thereby promoting the quality of work relationships.

As described in Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's (2018) focal article, the workplace has changed tremendously over the past few decades. These changes, undoubtedly, have affected how individuals interact and build relationships in the workplace. We live in a “networked society,” where the advances in technology and subsequent spread of communication and information have reorganized the way individuals are connected to one another (Castells, 2004; Wellman, 1999). In other words, we exist in complex networks, where underlying interconnections and interdependencies are the keys to scientific understanding. In their focal article, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu highlight the need to adapt social exchange theories and research to incorporate the change in workplace relationships resulting from advances in technology and changes in the global market and workforce (e.g., freelancers, contract workers).

The evolution of organizational working relationships is always a timely discussion, especially in an age where globalization, remote workforces, and most recently artificial intelligence, to name just three, hold great promise but also concern for organizations’ capabilities to build on the strengths of traditional relationship theories while looking forward to and blazing paths toward future relationship theories. We appreciate Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's (2018) questioning of the “old” social exchange theory (SET) as a relevant organizing framework and their proposition of a “new” or hybrid workplace relationship theory to reflect today's workforce. In short, Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu practice good science by not throwing out what does not seem to fit but rather helping science evolve into what it needs to become (see Gergen's [2001] great commentary on ill-advised practices of ending traditions when criticisms are levied). We also admire Chernyak-Hai's and Rabenu's willingness to invite “additional organizational behavior [OB] theories” (p. 476) to join the conversation in defining what the new era workplace relationship might look like. With that invitation and a little latitude in what could be defined as “an OB theory,” we propose that the working alliance (WA; Bordin, 1979) be given space in that narrative. The substance of our commentary will describe the WA connection with Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu's new or hybrid theory, principally as it relates to issues regarding (a) tension toward equality and fairness and (b) mutual reciprocity in exchange relationships.